zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
> It’s as if a biologist were to say: “I have a great new theory of organisms. It lists many that exist and many that can’t possibly exist, and I can tell you nothing about the distinction.”

> Again, we’d laugh. Or should.

Should we? This reminds me acutely of imaginary numbers. They are a great theory of numbers that can list many numbers that do 'exist' and many that can't possibly 'exist'. And we did laugh when imaginary numbers were first introduced - the name itself was intended as a derogatory term for the concept. But who's laughing now?

>>johnfn+e4
In the case of complex numbers mathematicians understand the distinction extremely well, so I'm not sure it's a perfect analogy.